Widecombe Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Staff were seen communicating effectively and sharing information to ensure people received timely and appropriate care. A staff member told us, “It’s a caring place, nice staff and residents.”

Relatives told us the management team were accessible, and they could raise concerns with them. One relative told us, “It is a good and welcoming home. I can talk to anybody from the management team, and they are all kind. They let me know what I need to know.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider and registered manager failed to demonstrate effective oversight of their responsibilities. They failed to act on environmental risks including accessible areas with high water temperatures.

However, we received positive feedback about management from staff and relatives.

A staff member told us, they feel supported by the management all the time.

A relative told us, “I can talk to anybody from the management team, and they are all very kind.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The management encouraged feedback from staff, relatives and people.

A relative told us, “There is excellent contact with the management. I can raise anything.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manager had effective ways to enable staff to be part of an inclusive culture. For example, there were regular staff meetings and staff one to one supervisions.

A staff member told us, that the registered manager was approachable and fair.

The provider did not have effective governance systems in place to assure themselves of the quality and safety of care provided for people.

The provider demonstrated that some audits were identifying areas for improvement and action was being taken, however audit and quality assurance of key areas of service provision did not identify concerns we found during the assessment. This meant issues were not always followed up, rectified and monitored appropriately to drive continuous improvements. We found concerns in areas of incidents, medicines processes and the environment. Environmental and medicines concerns had been found at our previous inspection. People were potentially being placed at risk. We did not find any harm had been caused to people. The provider responded promptly when issues were brought to their attention and provided evidence of improvements made.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. There was evidence that the service worked with local GP’s, pharmacists, social workers and other healthcare professionals.

The registered manager told us that the service was building links with a local school and there are monthly visits from the local church.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. We found leaders did not always have oversight of incidents to ensure wider learning and improvement could take place. We also found repeated concerns from our previous inspection which meant that improvements had either not happened or had not been sustained. However, the provider told us about some improvements they had made in the service including improvements to the dementia friendly environment.’